Is anyone else concerned and a little deeply down to the fact that we now have the Hines Rule and the Ryan Clark Rule? They are named after our players and the examples why they are now in place is from Hines hit to knock out that rook on the bengals and Clarks hit in the middle of the field to Welker.
Goodell is ruining this league. We are the team who will suffer the most from these stupid rule changes. Just go ahead and put flags on all players and a skirt on the qb's!!!!
Nobody likes this by the way except a some of the owners and of course Goodell--Its tackle football, people are going to get hurt!

papillon

03-25-2009, 11:11 AM

NATIONAL FLAG FOOTBALL LEAGUE

Is anyone else concerned and a little deeply down to the fact that we now have the Hines Rule and the Ryan Clark Rule? They are named after our players and the examples why they are now in place is from Hines hit to knock out that rook on the bengals and Clarks hit in the middle of the field to Welker.
Goodell is ruining this league. We are the team who will suffer the most from these stupid rule changes. Just go ahead and put flags on all players and a skirt on the qb's!!!!
Nobody likes this by the way except a some of the owners and of course Goodell--Its tackle football, people are going to get hurt!

I have to admit I hate the new rules (particularly the one about allowing the receiver to catch and land on the ground before hitting him), but, if they want to eliminate a lot of hard hitting then just remove the helmet from the uniform.

Pappy

SteelHead

03-25-2009, 11:12 AM

I was watching coverage of this topic on NFLN last night and they just kept showing the same 3 or 4 clips of Steelers laying people out. To be honest....I loved it , not the rule change but the fact that our bad *ss style of play forces the league into trying to legislate smashmouth football. If they think this will change how our players tackle or block on the field their crazy. The only thing that'll change is Goodell's whiny yellow towel being tossed around more often than usual.

papillon

03-25-2009, 11:19 AM

I was watching coverage of this topic on NFLN last night and they just kept showing the same 3 or 4 clips of Steelers laying people out. To be honest....I loved it , not the rule change but the fact that our bad *ss style of play forces the league into trying to legislate smashmouth football. If they think this will change how our players tackle or block on the field their crazy. The only thing that'll change is Goodell's whiny yellow towel being tossed around more often than usual.

And more fines...But, here's an interesting question concerning the WR rule.

A receiver leaps in the air on the sideline to catch an errant pass.
A cornerback (Ike Taylor for the sake of discussion) hits the receiver while in the air and knocks him out of bounds. Which rule do you apply? The one that says there are no force outs any longer and the pass is incomplete? Or, the rule that says you can't hit a receiver while he's in the air?

Good luck with that one

They are basically giving receivers the catch every time as long as they can actually jump in the air and catch at the same time (particularly on the sideline). How do you defend this?

Pappy

SteelHead

03-25-2009, 11:35 AM

I was watching coverage of this topic on NFLN last night and they just kept showing the same 3 or 4 clips of Steelers laying people out. To be honest....I loved it , not the rule change but the fact that our bad *ss style of play forces the league into trying to legislate smashmouth football. If they think this will change how our players tackle or block on the field their crazy. The only thing that'll change is Goodell's whiny yellow towel being tossed around more often than usual.

And more fines...But, here's an interesting question concerning the WR rule.

A receiver leaps in the air on the sideline to catch an errant pass.
A cornerback (Ike Taylor for the sake of discussion) hits the receiver while in the air and knocks him out of bounds. Which rule do you apply? The one that says there are no force outs any longer and the pass is incomplete? Or, the rule that says you can't hit a receiver while he's in the air?

Good luck with that one

They are basically giving receivers the catch every time as long as they can actually jump in the air and catch at the same time (particularly on the sideline). How do you defend this?

Pappy

Is that really the rule. No hitting a receiver while he's in the air ? That's crazy. I interpreted it as not being able to lead with the head or shoulder into the receivers head/neck area while he's in the air or in a defenseless position.

MicroBioSteel

03-25-2009, 12:46 PM

The key phrase is Initial Contact. My interpretation of the rule is that as long as first contact is to a location other than the head area then it will be legal. If a receiver first makes contact with his hand or shoulder to any part other than the head then it will be legal no matter how light or heavy that contact is. If on the follow through contact is made with the helmet of the other player that will still be legal.

I still hate the rule but it may not be as bad as we think. My main concern is that it will be a judgment call by the officials and those are the worst, especially, at critical junctures in the game. It all happens too fast at game speed to be accurate.

The NFL is on a slippery slope towards a finesse league where intimidation plays less of a role in the game.

drprwnap

03-25-2009, 12:47 PM

NATIONAL FLAG FOOTBALL LEAGUE

Is anyone else concerned and a little deeply down to the fact that we now have the Hines Rule and the Ryan Clark Rule? They are named after our players and the examples why they are now in place is from Hines hit to knock out that rook on the bengals and Clarks hit in the middle of the field to Welker.
Goodell is ruining this league. We are the team who will suffer the most from these stupid rule changes. Just go ahead and put flags on all players and a skirt on the qb's!!!!
Nobody likes this by the way except a some of the owners and of course Goodell--Its tackle football, people are going to get hurt!

:Agree

Hey, I think I was the first one with NFFL-back on the thread where there was just talk of this rule :)

Mister Pittsburgh

03-25-2009, 01:04 PM

make the players wear helmets like Don Bebe wore and get rid of all these lame ass rules. What does the NFL do after a season filled with horrible officiating, refs not even knowing the rules, and a game even being decided on a horrible call (Hoculi)....they create more rules that will be judgement calls.

I think this is just a conspiracy to fix the outcomes of games even more. Refs can now make a judgement call on every single play to control the outcomes. Guess Goodel figures the NFL better get in on the action in Vegas.

Jooser

03-25-2009, 02:02 PM

This just all sucks. Play the game.

BURGH86STEEL

03-25-2009, 03:38 PM

The key phrase is Initial Contact. My interpretation of the rule is that as long as first contact is to a location other than the head area then it will be legal. If a receiver first makes contact with his hand or shoulder to any part other than the head then it will be legal no matter how light or heavy that contact is. If on the follow through contact is made with the helmet of the other player that will still be legal.

I still hate the rule but it may not be as bad as we think. My main concern is that it will be a judgment call by the officials and those are the worst, especially, at critical junctures in the game. It all happens too fast at game speed to be accurate.

The NFL is on a slippery slope towards a finesse league where intimidation plays less of a role in the game.

I agree. The rule is not so bad. They are trying to limit concussions. The problem will arise with the speed of the game and judgment calls by the refs.